this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
358 points (95.2% liked)
Greentext
8404 readers
584 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AFAIK, in 1860 about 20% of families in the slave states owned slaves. Lots of those were probably relatively poor farmers - slaves or no, small farmers in the 19th century weren't that wealthy. Also, since when does the Christian god condemn entire family lines? Is slavery even forbidden by the bible?
In the Jewish part of Bible there are passages about kinda inheriting sin as something you need to do something about (e.g. Cain and his lineage). But even there its not straightforward inheritance. With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.
Sir, this is greentext. It’s supposed to be bogus, that’s the joke
It's pretty fun to dissect the bogus, though.
Generally the sin inheritance thing goes to everyone.
Not one jot or tiddle of the old law will be gotten rid of until Jesus comes back during end times. So said Jesus. Green text is on point.
Punishing descendants is absolutely a part of the bible. Women experiencing pain during childbirth is supposedly a punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
Yeah, she really shouldn't have listen to the snake. Women could have been giving birth like a giraffe: Just standing there, muching on a snack while the baby just falls out.
For some biblical figures really far back, yes, but as a punishment for normal (real) people?
Women are normal (real) people, I believe.
According to the bible, Eva is the literal second human and first woman and IIRC lived for hundreds of years, so no, she's not normal or real.
But the millions of women who suffer from pain during birth on her behalf are normal and real.
Shit, if that's the case, I'm surprised Christians haven't tried to outlaw epidurals.
https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/
Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he's citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it's clearly talking about servants as a blessing. Not necessarily slaves. The words in question are עֶ֫בֶד and שִׁפְחָה. Basically every other translation I flipped through rendered this as servants, including the likes of culturally significant ones that Christians draw on for doctrine like the KJV and ESV.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something? 🤣
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use "servants" is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they'll see the bible advocating.
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it's still a valid translation, the word for "slavery" in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn't really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible's writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
...and chattel slaves like in Exodus 21:20-21
Or chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46
Leviticus 25:44-46 NRSVUE [44] As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. [45] You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. [46] You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Yes, that's Exodus. Jesus did underline this whole period as a time when Moses wrote compromises because people's hearts were hard. Another example is divorce which is what Jesus used:
Mark 10:3-5
Jesus said divorce was bad, did he say slavery was bad? You seem to be in denial of how okay with slavery Christianity was. Christianity changed between the composition of the bible and today.
Christians already have to convince themselves of that. At least once it's brought to their attention. It's not exactly something that gets brought up during your typical Sunday School session.
This type of thing is exactly what's brought up during Sunday school
Most of the Sunday School I remeber was just making like, paper Jesus puppets and shit.
In Sunday school I learned what a prostitute was (from the story of Jericho) about King Solomon suggesting cutting a baby in half, that dude that sacrificed his daughter because she was the first to come out of her house, how scripture has been misused to justify slavery, how it's been misused to justify violence, Noah's nakedness, the left handed dude who used his left handedness to assassinate a king, Asherah poles being destroyed, David cutting Saul's robe while he was peeing, to name a few
If all of the cited passages are actually talking about servants, they're treating their servants so badly that the difference is merely semantic. Note that American (including both USA and other countries' colonies in the Americas) chattle slavery was unusually depraved, in mediterranean antiquity slaves were generally treated better than that (or so the surviving accounts would have us believe).
Yeah, I don't think it really matters what word is considered a better translation. It is talking about humans becoming property.
In Exodus 21:2-11, it says Hebrew men are restricted to being indentured servants for 6 years unless they volunteer for more. And Hebrew girls/women are sold forever, just not to foreign nations. And in Leviticus 25:44-46, it directly addresses that gentiles can be enslaved, sold, and inherited with no special restrictions.
A slave by another name is still a slave.
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs. almost like the religion isnt based on anything but vibes
Source?
it wasnt until 1888 that the pope denounced slavery wholesale, until that point is was various manners of "fine long as they're treated right", then "fine long as they're not (white) christians", "fine long as they're christians", "fine long as it's punishment for a crime". etc.
Before Messianic times, the likes of Philo of Alexandria rejected slavery. And even in the early Messianic times (from a secular standpoint, this is when Christianity became a thing) there were abolitionists such as St Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century bishop.
Protestants were denouncing slavery in the 1700s, such as John Wesley and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade being formed in the late 1700s by Quakers - which was originally a Christian denomination.
There's a 40~ minute documentary on the subject available here: https://youtu.be/kA0-21H1TtU
All of these claims could be true, but even so, it does not mean that the Bible rejects slavery or that the church has rejected slavery historically. Many of the churches in the American south explicitly endorse slavery before the civil war. Not only due to biblical scripture but in order to preserve their hierarchical society.
There are a number of lgbtq affirming churches today in America. Some are splitting up over this issue. I can point to verses in the Bible such as when Jesus tells people to become eunuchs or when Paul says "there is is neither Jew nor gentile nor male nor female" and say that the Bible allows lgbtq people to live normally. But if in 50 years, lgbtq people are accepted by the church, and I said that it was always that way, that would be intellectually dishonest. The tradition of eunuchs that people would point out in history was condemned by the council of Nicaea around 500 AD and marginalization would continue and has continued today. I'd be intellectually dishonest if I said that the church had always respected lgbtq people.
Likewise, it's the same with slavery. It wasn't condemned and it was supported by scriptures and the people who practice Christianity. Christian countries would conquer land and take slaves. It's intellectually dishonest to say that the church has always condemned slavery or that it was the majority position until recently.
History? Tf do you mean?
The support of slavery has never been Christian dogma.
No its encouraged, as is your daughter marrying her rapist
In the US they do this with Mexicans now but not Canadians... yet.
as examples, working on the Sabbath ??
who said anon is a Christian?
Anon lost everything in the mameluk uprising
What non-Christian believes in hell?
anon!